Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][mp11] Formal review of Mp11
From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-07-19 18:41:30

On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Brook Milligan via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Here is my formal review of Mp11.


> > 5. What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
> I have been using this library (or its precursor) for the last year in a
> large code base. Thus, for me personally, it has already been very
> useful. I expect that it will be highly useful in general.
> > 6. Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have
> > any problems?
> I have been using clang to work with the code base that uses Mp11.
> > 7. How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
> > reading? In-depth study?
> I have not put a great deal of extra effort into this specific review.
> However, I have been using the library for a year, during which time I have
> thoroughly studied the original articles, copied the code itself, and
> modified bits to support metafunctions that were not originally provided.
> This work has been spread out over months, but I feel it corresponds to an
> in-depth study at some level.

This is one of the things with which I'm struggling when considering the
use of mp11, or Brigand, or any of the other recent offerings out there.

I've found TMP so *easy* in 11 and later, that I've entirely stop using a
library to do it. I'm trying to understand why anyone would -- that's not
my making an argument, just failure of imagination. :)

Brook, could you share some example uses? Is mp11 more useful to you
because it does something that would be hard for you to get right, or
because it does lots of simple things that you'd have to repeat endlessly?
Or perhaps it's something else?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at